There is a fit & happier person inside everyone

Category Archives: Diet and Exercise Studies

Best-selling author, David Pink, released a new book that’s getting plenty of buzz. When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing is a guide to timing everything from when to exercise to when to schedule surgery to optimize results based on scientific studies. I can’t speak to the best time to schedule surgery, but the book’s recommendations regarding exercise are in my wheel house and I’ve a few things to say about them.

This post isn’t about refuting the science nor the advice Pink gives. Though I haven’t read his book, the summaries I’ve read indicate Pink takes sound, peer reviewed exercise studies and synthesizes the results into straight-forward advice on when to exercise for the best results according to a person’s goals. Rather, I’m asking whether the recommendations are practical, or even viable, for the average person in real life situations. And I’m using personal experience to back up my assertions.

The Advice: If your goal is weight loss, you should exercise first thing in the morning, before breakfast.

The Science: Studies have shown a person will burn more stored body fat as fuel for exercise if she exercises before breakfast compared to exercising after breakfast.

The Logic: During exercise, the body burns stored carbohydrates in muscle (glycogen) as fuel first and, only after glycogen stores have been depleted, will the body burn stored body fat as fuel. In the morning, one’s glycogen stores are at their lowest due to the overnight fast the body has endured. Therefore, if an individual wishes to maximize body fat burn during exercise for weight loss, one should exercise before breakfast.

Makes sense, right? I knew about the studies that proved this phenomenon before Thanksgiving this past year. I normally workout mid to late morning because that’s what works best with my schedule and it feels right to me. But, I thought Thanksgiving morning would be the perfect time to try this out. I never felt so ill after a workout in my life.

What happened? Two things. First, low glycogen stores also means, for many, less than optimal blood sugar (glucose). It wouldn’t take much exercise for glucose to drop too low to properly fuel continued exercise under those circumstances. Light-headedness, irritability, headache and nausea are common symptoms of low blood sugar. The other, more debilitating phenomenon was I was dehydrated. As the logic above suggests, the overnight fast not only depletes glycogen stores but also water.

I was aware of this that morning and drank water (and avoided caffeine) before my workout, but not nearly enough. However, if I had drunk more water prior to my workout, I would’ve had to wait longer to exercise to avoid stomach cramping. This, in turn, would have further delayed my breakfast, compounding the effects of low blood sugar during exercise. All of this to say that, while the science and logic pass muster, the advice isn’t practical for many and, for some, may be impossible to follow.

Hack the Science to Your Advantage

I realized a few things that day. Number one, I can’t workout before breakfast. Number two, my body is inclined to naturally use this logic on its own. My sweet spot for workouts is between 11am and noon. My workouts are most productive and challenging and my post-workout high most satisfying when they’re in that timeframe.

I feel slightly hungry at 11am as I’ve digested breakfast, yet I’ve had enough time to normalize my hydration levels. Which means, while my glycogen stores aren’t as low as they were when I woke up, they are depleted to a degree by 11:00 and, if my workout is long enough or vigorous enough, I will use them up and begin to burn fat for fuel near the end of my workout as well as during post-workout calorie burn (known as EPOC) without becoming dehydrated. My body has been using the science to my advantage in the way that worked best for me.

That’s what we all should do. Just because a study tells us we should do this or avoid that doesn’t mean that we have to, or even can, follow the advice exactly as it’s given. Sometimes we have to recognize our limitations and unique circumstances and figure out how we can manipulate the concept behind the advice to fit our lifestyles.

If optimizing fat burn is your exercise goal but working out before breakfast isn’t practical or possible, here are a few ways to hack the recommendation:

Have a small, high-carb snack and 16-24 oz of water as soon as you get up and perform your workout 30-60 minutes after eating. Follow the workout with a calorically moderate, high-protein breakfast, such as: eggs and toast; oatmeal (made with milk) with nuts/seeds; plain kefir, nut butter & banana smoothie

Perform your workout several hours after your last meal and about an hour before the next meal (lunch or dinner). Be sure you’re hydrating regularly throughout the day as opposed to trying to hydrate all at once before the workout.

Make the workouts count – structure them so you deplete your glycogen stores and ensure some body fat for fuel. Here are three examples. Pick one that best suits your abilities, workout preferences and schedule:

One of my most common refrains as a trainer to people who’ve had difficulty adopting an exercise routine is to ignore all the advice telling us about the best – the best gym, the best workout, the best time to exercise. The best is relative. If working out before breakfast doesn’t work for you then it can’t possibly be your best time to workout. The best workout is one that you will do because you enjoy it and it fits your lifestyle. Hack the science to meet your needs, not the other way around.

The “Five Secrets of Steady Exercisers” is revealed in today’s Wall Street Journal. The article explains exercise and human behavior scientists contend only about 21% of American adults exercise regularly and they’ve endeavored to identify what behaviors these individuals have in common. The belief being, if that code can be cracked, it may help the other 79%, many of whom attempt but fail to convert from couch potato to exercise dynamo year after year. They’ve found five habits most regular exercisers have in common.

Being a convert myself and helping to convert others, I know a thing or two about this evasive phenomenon. Today I’m taking these five secrets and expanding on them, adding context, expertise and personal experience. If you’re among the 79% who’ve tried unsuccessfully to crack the code of conversion, this post’s for you.

WSJ Secret: “They exercise at the same time most days.”

Michelle’s Code: Scheduling leads to consistency. If you place work meetings, kid’s extracurricular activities and doctor appointments on an electronic or paper calendar so you won’t double book or forget about it, you should be scheduling your workouts the same way and giving them the same priority.

While the WSJ rule doesn’t specify that regular exercisers schedule their exercise, working out at the same time most days is essentially the same thing. The point is a specific time is carved out most days and given top priority. Exercise dynamos needn’t actually put their workout sessions on a calendar any more than they need to put brushing their teeth on the calendar.

But, for those who haven’t yet created exercise habits, physically scheduling and mentally prioritizing are musts. Not only for the first week or the first month but for at least a year. It’s more important that you schedule them at times when they’re least likely to get bumped on any given day than to schedule them at the same time every day.

WSJ Secret: “An increasing number of active people are widening their definition of exercise.”

Michelle’s Code: Seek out ways to move every day. People trying to establish a workout routine tend to view exercise as an “other” in their daily lives. They see it as something separate they must add to everything else they need to accomplish during the day. Regular exercisers tend to view dedicated workouts as on par with walking during their commute, yard work, cleaning, playing soccer with their kids and preparing to host a celebratory meal.

It may seem counterintuitive, but if you consider daily activities that involve walking or standing along with twisting, bending, lifting, pushing or pulling as constituting exercise, even if they don’t induce perspiration or last only ten minutes at a time, you’re more likely to also perform dedicated workouts regularly. What workout dynamos understand is active, in all its forms, is the opposite of sedentary. Your heart and lungs don’t know if you’re on a treadmill, at a Soul Cycle class or digging a hole to plant a sapling. If you’re moving, you’re exercising.

Once you internalize this, you take the pressure off. You can legitimately believe, while you wish you hadn’t overslept and missed your morning Pilates class, you haven’t failed because you walked during your lunch hour and cleaned up the playroom after the kids went to bed.

Michelle’s Code: Always be prepared to be active. Dynamos, for example, have their workout items out and ready for the next day before going to bed. Using the example from the last paragraph, a regular exerciser also has a pair of sneakers at work so, on the occasion she misses Pilates, she can walk during her lunch hour.

Ultimately, it’s a no-excuses mindset. If you believe any and all activity constitutes exercise, then you’ll set up your environment to be sure any tool you may need to take advantage of an opportunity to be active is available to you wherever you are. Never allow yourself an excuse to say no to an opportunity to exercise.

Courtesy of Bing Images

WSJ Secret: “They’re more flexible than infrequent exercisers about how long or vigorously they exercise.”

Michelle’s Code: Turn the rigid exercise mindset on its head. To be fair to the 79% considered inactive, the rigid exercise mindset comes straight from the fitness industry. Even the guidelines on exercise from U.S. Health and Human Services suggest that exercise should be of a certain duration, frequency and intensity to count.

Science proves nothing could be further from the truth. By every measure, several short bouts of any exercise that cumulatively add up to one hour is equal to one hour straight of that same exercise. Furthermore, several short bouts of high intensity exercise is more beneficial, by every measure, than one longer continuous bout of that same exercise at a lower intensity. Activity of any form, duration and intensity is always beneficial and always infinitely better than inactivity.

When you embrace this healthier mindset, every activity you engage in becomes a win and psychologically encourages you to get another win. When you only count a one-hour Zumba class as exercise, then any time you miss that class, it’s counted as a failure and you’re psychologically discouraged from trying again for a win.

WSJ Secret: “They’re more likely to exercise for pleasure than for weight loss or other long-term health goals.”

Michelle’s Code: Shift your goals. This is undeniably the most difficult to do. There’s so much pressure to exercise to achieve aesthetic changes. Yet, aesthetic goals don’t work well in the short-term and rarely work in the long-term.

Again, science is our friend. We now know it’s better to be fat and active than to be skinny and inactive. Let that one sink in for a minute.

What does better mean? It means a lower mortality rate, higher quality of life, better sleep, greater feelings of well-being, elevated energy levels and sex drive and a more positive body image. The true embodiment of fit and happier.

Gluten free (GF) is the food fad that just won’t die. Perhaps more studies like this one printed in the publication Epidemiology, which shows people on a GF diet have higher levels of mercury and arsenic in their bodies, will finally help put the final nail in the coffin of this misguided phenomenon.

First, let me begin with a few important disclaimers. There is a significant number of people who have Celiac disease – approximately one to two million Americans – for whom GF isn’t a dietary preference but, rather, a life-saving necessity. Less clear is the number of people who have clinical gluten sensitivity, defined by acute gastrointestinal discomfort that appears to be linked to the ingestion of gluten, the protein found in wheat, bulgur, barley and rye. Part of the reason the numbers of the gluten sensitive are difficult to define is because people often self-diagnose or avoid ingesting gluten for long periods of time before being tested. (The gluten sensitivity test results are known to be inconclusive after gluten has already been eliminated from the diet.) For those who have been clinically diagnosed with gluten sensitivity, GF is the best way to avoid uncomfortable symptoms and have a better quality of life. An even smaller number of individuals are allergic to gluten. Most of these people have the allergy as children and grow out of it in adulthood. But the small number doesn’t make this allergy any less serious. So, for those suffering from Celiac and clinical gluten allergy or sensitivity, a GF diet is no fad.

But it’s estimated that a million people follow a GF diet despite not having been diagnosed with Celiac or a sensitivity. The reasons run the gamut. Some believe they’re sensitive to gluten but haven’t been to a doctor to diagnose it, others believe gluten is unhealthy, and some follow GF as a weight loss strategy.

Dieticians and nutritionists have been working hard to get the word out to the general population that avoiding gluten if you don’t have to provides no benefits and may actually be detrimental. GF doesn’t facilitate weight loss. In fact, people who avoid gluten after diagnosis of Celiac or a sensitivity tend to gain weight as their gastrointestinal systems begin to function normally. And, contrary to the belief that gluten is unhealthy, there are vital nutrients in wheat products – B vitamins, in particular – that are difficult to get any other way.

But now, a new study is showing that those on a GF diet have higher levels of arsenic (twice as much) and mercury (70% more) in their urine and blood, respectively, compared to those who consume gluten in their diets. Scientists believe that the toxic metals are found in higher amounts in GF products because rice flour – a cheap and abundant flour – is a common substitute for wheat flour. Rice grains are more absorbent than other grains and will extract higher amounts of chemical substances from soil, water and fertilizers.

This is bothersome news for those dealing with Celiac and gluten allergy or sensitivity. The best way to avoid additional exposure to these toxins is to use non-rice flours at home and avoid purchasing GF products that use rice flour as a substitute for wheat.

For everyone else who’s GF, even though the study acknowledges that the higher levels of arsenic and mercury aren’t yet at the point of causing harm, one should be asking herself, would she rather trade gluten for arsenic and mercury?

Like this:

Eggs, coffee, chocolate, red wine – these are just a few of the foods that once were demonized by nearly all of the nutrition experts that have since been vindicated by a plethora of studies, common sense and the test of time.

Dairy products which naturally contain saturated fat – whole milk, butter and cheese, in particular – appear to finally be getting their day in the sunlight of nutritionally approved foods. But I suspect (and hope) it won’t end here. I think it’s high time all natural saturated fats be taken off of the nutrition police’s top most wanted list. But, before I get ahead of myself, here’s the skinny on dairy.

Recent Studies Vindicating Dairy

Since 2009, there have been several studies that have linked full fat dairy to lower rates of obesity, lower risk for cardiovascular disease and the prevention of fat accumulation in the liver. But, 2016 has ushered in a trifecta of published, peer reviewed studies that seem to indicate that full fat dairy may actually be better for our health than low or no fat dairy. Two of these studies are clinical studies, the gold-standard in scientific studies and far more conclusive than the more common epidemiological studies. By the way, most of the nutrition community’s shunning of saturated fats, including dairy fat, over the last 50+ years is based on old epidemiological studies. Many of which were later discovered to have major flaws.

In January, the Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland published the results of a controlled, clinical study to determine if a higher fat DASH diet made a difference in health markers compared to the original DASH diet. The DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet has long been known to reduce blood pressure and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The diet promotes high volumes of fruit and vegetables, small amounts of lean proteins and moderate amounts of low and no-fat dairy.

This study compared the health markers of three groups of people following three different diets: the traditional DASH diet allowing only low and no fat dairy, the high fat DASH diet allowing for full fat dairy and a control group who followed none of the parameters of a DASH diet. The study revealed that blood pressure was reduced the same amount in both the regular DASH and high fat DASH diets compared to the control group. But the high fat DASH participants showed a greater decrease in triglycerides and LDL (bad) cholesterol compared to the regular DASH diet. Strike one for low and no fat dairy.

In April, a Harvard and Tufts epidemiological study, based on a follow up of the Nurse’s Health Study which followed 3,333 people for fifteen years, found that those participants with the highest amounts of dairy fat in their blood were nearly 50% less likely to develop diabetes. Strike two for low and no fat dairy.

Last month, a controlled, clinical study conducted by the University of Copenhagen was published by The American Society for Nutrition. This study, which ran for twelve weeks, had 164 participants split into three groups. One group consumed 80g of full-fat cheese daily, the second group consumed 80g of reduced fat cheese daily and the third group (the control) consumed 80g of bread and jam (a carbohydrate alternative to cheese). At the conclusion of the study, LDL (bad) cholesterol levels for participants of all three diet groups were statistically the same compared to the start of the study. However, only one group saw statistically significant increases in HDL (good) cholesterol by the end of the study – the full fat cheese group. Strike three for low and no fat dairy.

The Take Away

More and more experts in the field of nutrition are beginning to be swayed by the ever increasing, quality studies that seem to suggest that not only is full fat dairy not bad for you, but it may actually be better for you than dairy that has fat removed. Unfortunately, the latest U.S. government guidelines still recommend that all dairy be consumed in low or no fat form. And they allow for only a tiny intake of total saturated fat – less than 10% of daily calories. It’ll be another five years before new recommendations will be published. Will they finally catch up?

On a similar note, dairy fat has been marginalized because it’s saturated fat. Saturated fat as a whole has been demonized by the same, flawed epidemiological studies I referenced before. The nutrition community has come around on saturated fats from plant sources, such as coconut and avocado oils, and from fish that contain omega 3 fatty acids. And they seem to be coming around on dairy fat, but what about saturated fats from other animal sources? Are they really as bad as we once thought? And, if not, can’t we allow for more saturated fat than is currently recommended?

Hopefully we’ll find out the answers to those questions soon enough. In the meantime, this dairy-loving girl is thrilled to get the green light on cheese. Bring on the brie!

“The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet,” Nina Teicholz’s best selling book, delves into decades of nutritional studies that indicate the low-fat movement, while well-intentioned, was based on flawed, misinterpreted data and lacked rigorous scientific study. Recent clinical studies are adding more heft to the argument that dietary fat in general, saturated fat specifically, is not unhealthy. Even more importantly, a reduction of our intake of dietary fat over the last several decades may actually be detrimental as evidenced by this study that links full-fat dairy intake with a reduction (by nearly 50%!) in Type II diabetes risk.

Which leads me to say, “Duh!” Why do we get sucked in, over and over again, by these new “rules” of diet and fitness? Does it make sense that fats, one of only three macronutrients necessary for human survival, are killing us? Ditto carbohydrates?

Let’s put some common sense out there and state what we know about the existence of humans on Earth for millennia:

Humans are omnivores: The idea that saturated fats, which in non-tropical areas come predominantly from animals, are the main contributors to obesity and heart disease just doesn’t add up. The first humans, the hunter-gatherers, got the bulk of their nutrition from animals. Some civilizations, such as the Inuit, had little or no vegetation in their diets. For the same reasons, it’s illogical to believe consumption of animal meat causes human disease. As yet, there are no clinical studies that have proven a link between animal-derived foods and human disease, sensational and misleading headlines notwithstanding.

The human diet has evolved: The first Agricultural Revolution happened over 10,000 years ago and several minor Agricultural Revolutions took place in Arab and European civilizations centuries ago. Also, agriculture is constantly evolving both as part of the natural evolutionary process and as humans have perfected and scaled farming techniques. As such, apples and wheat farmed today are quite different from those same crops 500-1000 years ago. But, they’re still apples and wheat. Their DNA, so to speak, is still the DNA of apples and wheat. The plants themselves have evolved and adapted and humans have ‘bred’ stronger and more fruitful plants. This doesn’t make them bad for us as those touting the Paleo diet and many demonizing gluten (the protein in wheat) would have us believe. Indeed, without these innovations, many of us would be vulnerable to famine and drought as we were thousands of years ago and, unfortunately, as many in undeveloped nations still are.

Humans have adapted. Human survival during migration periods meant we had to adapt to changing diets. This adaptation allowed various peoples to flourish whether seaside or landlocked, whether in the desert or the rainforest. Why did the Inuit, who subsisted only on animals, not suffer from scurvy, a vitamin C deficiency? We associate vitamin C with citrus fruits and other produce. Yet vitamin C, and many other micronutrients we associate with produce, are in abundance in animal products as well. But not in the meat we consume today. Vitamin C and other nutrients are found in the organs and bone of animals. Cultures that relied only on animals to exist consumed the entire animal and, as such, those civilizations survived and thrived. Similarly, cultures that had little animal resources available have also been able to adapt to survive and thrive on a mostly vegetarian diet. Yet, somehow, vegetarian diets are viewed as more healthy than predominantly animal-sourced diets. The evidence does not support this common assumption.

So, what gives? Why are obesity and diseases like heart-disease and diabetes on the rise in Western cultures? I contend that the blame has been misplaced for quite some time and the changes that we have made in response to this is actually contributing to the worsening of these problems.

If humans have been consuming carbohydrates in the form of wheat for centuries and animal fats for millennia, why would these foods suddenly make us sick? They haven’t. But, we’ve been told they have and these food products have been altered to remove the “bad” stuff before we consume them – removing the gluten from wheat, removing the fat from milk. We’re monkeying with the food and that, in part, is what’s making us sick.

If you think about it, the emergence of these lifestyle diseases doesn’t correspond with the Agricultural Revolutions. But it does correspond with the Industrial Revolution. This is the revolution that gave us manufactured oils and shortening to replace butter, tropical oils and lard. This revolution, coupled with misguided nutrition advice, also had us removing the fat from our dairy and, a newer trend, removing dairy from our diets altogether. However, apparently, this is giving us more diabetes.

My theory is that the Industrial Revolution, and the more recent Technological Revolution, gave us food in greater abundance while, at the same time, automated a lot of the physical labor of daily living. In short, it isn’t what we were eating that’s making us sick, it’s how much we’re eating and how little we’re moving.

The common sense approach is, if you want to avoid obesity and lifestyle diseases like diabetes, eat and move like generations did before these problems existed. Stop removing fat and gluten from farmed food and replacing it with manufactured junk. If you aren’t allergic to milk, why would you shun milk from a cow to have factory-made “milk” from a soybean or nut? And, get off your duff. Long periods of sitting islinked to higher risk of disease. Common sense tells us great-great Grandpa was chopping wood and tilling his crops and he wasn’t binge-watching “The Walking Dead.”

Join me in eating and moving common sense-style. It tastes delicious and feels so good.

Many organizations put out listings of the fittest and least fit cities in the United States each year. WalletHub has released its 2016 list of the 100 most populated cities in America and ranked them from least fit to most fit. Here is a map depicting their findings:

The cities denoted with the blue dots are the least fit, with the brightest shades of blue scoring the worst. The cities in the middle of the pack are indicated with gray or light brown dots. The fittest cities range from orange-brown (better than average) dots to bright orange (most fit).

The Good

Unlike many other previous studies that have led to similar rankings, WalletHub’s 2016 survey takes into consideration many relevant factors beyond BMI (body mass index), which is a number derived from height and weight.

This is important because BMI alone has been shown to be an inconsistent predictor of true fitness. The most obvious reason is that lean mass (muscle and bones) is denser and weighs more compared to the same volume of fat mass. Therefore, for example, a muscular Olympic athlete may erroneously fall in the overweight category on the BMI chart.

While the study did factor in percentages of the population in each of the cities who fell into the overweight and obese categories based on BMI, WalletHub also took into consideration 14 factors beyond BMI. For example, they also examined the percentage of inactive individuals, percentage of low consumption of produce and prevalence of lifestyle related conditions such as diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension. This is a step in the right direction for these types of surveys.

The Bad

WalletHub is a financially focused website. So, it’s understandable that the main purpose of this study was to rank the fitness levels of the largest cities in the country in order to do a financial comparison to determine how much more costly it is for a city – both in healthcare costs and lower productivity – to have a predominately unhealthy population. What I’d prefer to see is a study focused specifically on health and fitness (as opposed to cost) that uses similar factors beyond BMI.

In addition, given that the authors of the study seemed to recognize the short-comings of the BMI chart, it would have been better for them to give more weight to the percentage of the population who fell into the obese category as opposed to weighting obese and overweight factors equally. The short-comings of the BMI are more pronounced for those in the overweight category compared to those in the obese category. Yet, this survey gave both categories the same weight to determine a city’s total score.

What all these studies almost always ignore is the other end of the BMI spectrum – those who are underweight. Being underweight has its own set of serious health risks and sometimes are an indication of chronically ill or frail individuals. This population, though obviously much smaller in number than the overweight and obese populations, incur similar costs associated with healthcare and low productivity. The percentages of low BMI may not be large enough to impact the final rankings, but it’s nonetheless an error to make the judgement that below normal BMI numbers are neutral or better as compared to high BMI numbers.

The Ugly

If there’s one thing I object to the most in this study and others like it is the semantics and the picture those words paint. The WalletHub rankings are entitled “fattest to fittest” cities in America. The depiction utilizes a health descriptor (fittest) at one end of the spectrum with a body image descriptor (fattest) at the other end. In every way, this is incorrect.

From a linguistic standpoint, fattest and fittest are not opposites. If they want to use fattest, then the opposite would be skinniest. I think anyone would recognize that this isn’t what these studies and surveys are measuring. After all skinny doesn’t always, and maybe not even often, equate to fit. And, as I pointed out before, we certainly know that an above average BMI doesn’t always equal unfit.

What they are trying to measure, indeed, is the fitness or health of a city’s population. In this sense, the survey is ranking most unfit to fittest or unhealthiest to healthiest. The word fat shouldn’t even be part of the conversation.

Still, no matter the words used to describe those cities at the very bottom of the health spectrum, the numbers are troubling. This is a serious quality of life issue for millions of Americans, both young and old. And we, as a society, really need to understand why these areas are struggling to adopt a fitter, healthier lifestyle. We can’t help them develop solutions until we understand the underlying causes.

So, while these annual surveys serve a purpose in determining the where, what and who of this problem, it’s time to start focusing on the why. Until we do that, we can’t know how to turn this ship around.

Most weekends, I peruse my fitness news feeds for blog posts, scientific study reports and emerging trends for ideas for my Monday post. Sometimes I find a pattern, an eerie connectedness, to a series of seemingly unrelated stories. This is one of those weeks. Namely, there is a link between misleading diet and food headlines in the news media, body image-centered social media posts and a relatively newly discovered eating disorder known as orthorexia.

News Media: I’ve written before about sensationalized headlines attached to releases of recent diet and fitness studies. Many times, the headlines and reports give distorted views of the actual studies, making assumptions about cause and effect that aren’t really there.

I’d be surprised if you didn’t learn of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recent report on red and processed meat. The headlines were everywhere and they were some of the most alarmist headlines insinuating a connection between food and cancer that I ever remember seeing. Statements like “bacon is as bad for your health as cigarettes” appeared in every major newspaper and television news report.

I’m not going to spend time debunking this irresponsible story. If you’d like to put yourself at ease, you can read responses to the WHO from nutrition science professionals and evidence of the incentives WHO has to make these claims that have nothing to do with protecting people from cancer risk. Rather, I’m presenting this as just the latest example of the distortion and demonization of a particular food or food group without any significant scientific evidence behind it and the resulting fear and irrational behavior it can lead to.

Social Media: Social media is ubiquitous, particularly among the most easily influenced – adolescents and young adults. Body image-centered social media posts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest, almost always accompanied by photos, usually fall into one of the following categories:

Celebrity Posts: The emergence of social media has fed our society’s obsession with the famous. Being able to “follow” a celebrity’s tweets and posts gives fans a false sense of a personal connection and intimate knowledge. When a celebrity posts selfies of workouts or “healthy” recipes, there is an impression given to young fans that the star is always working out and always eating a very low-calorie, highly restrictive diet. The young, who are the most likely to want to emulate celebrities, are going beyond dressing like them or wearing hair and make-up the same way. They are copying a “fit” lifestyle that is likely more extreme than the celebrity is actually living. I add to this category advertisements that include scantily-clad models who are photo-shopped to look as though they possess the current pop-culture perfect body template – usually very tall, well-defined abdominal muscles, very thin waists, legs and arms but with out-of-proportion larger breasts and back sides.

Titled “Sexy Post Workout Pose” by selfie author

Self Posts: The celebrity posts have spurred the non-famous to post fitness and diet related selfies as well. These are popular and have inspired a new term: fitspiration selfies. But these posts, when you peel back the curtains, are rarely about fitness. They’re all about thinness and equating exercising and elimination dieting as morally good and everything else as morally bad. Because the posts are constant and in huge numbers, they also give the impression that one is in the minority if she isn’t part of this culture.

Body-Shaming Posts: These are the most disturbing of all as exemplified by the above video made by online fitness expert, Cassey Ho, in response to vicious attacks posted about her on social media. Just as the name suggests, people either call out other people’s bodily “flaws” in an original post or make disparaging comments on someone else’s selfie post. It’s not only damaging to the person who is the target of the comments, but damaging to anyone reading the comment, particularly teens and young adults. It perpetuates the myth that anyone on earth either already possesses or can obtain the perfect body if only she exercises enough and eats only the “right” foods. But, it’s not only external. Using terms like muffin-top and thunder thighs to describe oneself in self-deprecating ways, even when cloaked in humor, internalizes feelings of shame over perceived body flaws.

Orthorexia: Most people are familiar with the eating disorders known as anorexia and bulimia. But news reports about “bad” foods and social media focused on “clean” eating and extreme exercise in order to look a certain way are feeding a newly discovered eating disorder known as orthorexia.

The short definition is an overly obsessive approach to eating only healthy or “clean” foods. Experts describe it as having a lot in common with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) but, in these cases, the OCD behaviors revolve entirely around diet and, many times, exercise as well.

Often, it begins in a non-obsessive way. A common scenario plays out like this: One adopts a vegetarian diet to self-treat an illness, lose weight or eat more healthfully. Attention given to social media posts that accompany selfies she may post of meals or workouts feeds her desire to double down on the food restrictions and exercise to continue to get more visible results to post in order to receive more positive feedback through social media. The diet goes from vegetarian to vegan; vegan to raw vegan and then, eventually, she may only be allowing herself to eat a handful of foods a few times a day. She irrationally fears any other food.

Unfortunately, orthorexia has not yet been recognized as an official mental health disorder the way other eating disorders have. For this reason, it’s often being misdiagnosed and, even for those who recognize they have the condition, it’s difficult to find someone who knows how to treat it.

What we can do is get the word out there, call out body-shaming when we encounter it and be voices of true fitness and health by example and by teaching our children, particularly our daughters, that the value of a person is based on what’s on the inside not the outside.

If it could be scientifically proven that regular exercise staves off common, life-shortening diseases despite your genetic make-up, would you feel differently about exercise? We’re not quite there yet, but we are getting closer.

The difficulty in trying to determine how exercise affects our risks of developing common diseases like heart disease and diabetes is that it is hard to conduct long-term clinical trials that definitively link exercise (or lack thereof) to diseases contracted later in life. The most obvious problem is, even if one could design a study with a large, randomized amount of participants, including a control group, in proving there is a difference in disease development over time between those who exercise and those who don’t, one wouldn’t know how much differences in genetics, diet and other environmental factors contributed to disease contraction regardless of exercise.

This conundrum is precisely why it’s invaluable to enlist identical twins in studies such as these. Identical twins have the same DNA and grew up in the same household which means they lived under the same socio-economic conditions, eating the same diet and experiencing the same environmental factors in their formative years.

Thus far, identical twin studies have indicated that, at end of life, those twins who exercised more throughout life than their twin siblings tended to live longer and contract fewer diseases. It’s promising information in linking more exercise to longer, healthier lives. But it’s not perfect. Because, while it’s true that these studies control for DNA, they can’t control for other factors that can diverge for twins after they leave the same household. For example, their diets can become very different after decades living apart, they may be living under different socio-economic conditions, they could be exposed to different pollutants or experience different stress factors due to variances in occupations or relationship issues.

But a new study on identical twins suggests that exercise does make a huge difference on risk factors for diseases linked to mortality. This study from Finland, using the FinnTwin16 database, has been collecting data from identical twins beginning at the age of 16. This is the first large identical twin study that begins at such a young age and follows them as they age.

Not surprisingly, many identical twins remain very similar in lifestyle factors, such as diet make-up and exercise frequency, even after they enter adulthood, leave home and lead separate lives. However, the study was able to identify 10 sets of twin males who did differ greatly in exercise frequency by the time they reached their early to mid-twenties. In all ten cases, one twin exercised regularly while their counterpart didn’t exercise. In all cases, both siblings were exercising regularly when the study began, at the age of 16, but one twin had stopped exercising (usually due to work or family obligations) within the last three years. Also, in all cases, diets remained very similar. Metabolic and fitness tests, as well as brain scans, were conducted on all 20 individuals and the results were startling.

Those who were sedentary had a higher body fat percentage, indications of insulin resistance (an early risk factor for diabetes and other metabolic conditions), inferior cardiovascular capabilities and far less grey matter (especially in the parts of the brain that control motor function and coordination) compared to their active brothers. Considering that these dramatic differences in health indicators occurred after only a few years of a sedentary lifestyle, imagine how different the health of each twin would be compared to his brother over a lifetime.

Getting back to my original question, this isn’t proof that you can overcome a genetic predisposition to common diseases by exercising. This is not a clinical study, which uses a randomized sampling in a controlled testing environment. It is an epidemiological study that relies on questionnaires and surveys to collect data on individuals which can lead to subjective influences on the data and the sample for this study is small and not randomized. However, because the participants are identical twins, this study does offer something that most epidemiological studies can’t, and that is it does control for very important variables, the most important one being DNA. And the results in this study are consistent with other epidemiological and clinical exercise studies that have been conducted on identical twins as well as randomized studies on general populations.

Where this study may lack in proof of causation, I believe, it makes up for in hope. Many studies indicate there is a relationship between frequency of exercise and disease risk. What this study seems to suggest is the relationship exists no matter our DNA. That it isn’t rational to have a fatalistic attitude over bad genes. For me, that means hope informed by science that I have a lot more control over my health than I once thought. I hope, after reading this, you feel that way too.

Trending right now in health and fitness studies is the apparent link between hours of sitting and bad health. The first couple of studies done a few years ago produced such shockingly depressing results that there is a natural desire to continue to test the hypothesis through more and more studies on the subject. This is a good thing. The more scientific studies devoted to such an important topic, the better our understanding and the more likely we all can take action in our daily lives that will make us healthier. All good, right? Yes, but…

The rub is, taking these studies to the public leads to headlines like “Sitting is the New Smoking: Ways a Sedentary Lifestyle is Killing You” and statements like “the effects of long-term sitting are not reversible.” I dislike this approach because it implies the science is settled and, worse, it seems as though we are hopeless to do anything about it. I’m not a pessimist and I detest the sensationalized headlines and the all-is-lost message they portray. Let’s take a deep breath and a good, rational look at the facts.

First, the bad news:

Several recent peer-reviewed studies tested the correlation between number of hours sitting per day and mortality. The results have been consistent: there is an association between number of hours sitting per day and chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers), conditions that predispose one to these diseases (such as high LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, obesity and poor insulin sensitivity) and early death.

In one study, the risk factors didn’t seem to be less if the individual was active at other times of the day. Suggesting, for example, that sitting at a desk for 8 hours at work was not offset by stopping at the gym on the way home for an hour-long vigorous workout.

The apparent cut-off point is about 4 hours. In other words, sitting for less than 4 hours total per day did not raise risk factors of disease and early death, sitting for a total of 4 hours or more per day did raise risk factors.

Prolonged sitting is detrimental to posture and contributes to muscle imbalances that raise the risks of developing dysfunctional joint movement, acute and chronic pain, and injury.

Click here for a slideshow outlining the conclusions of these studies.

Now, reasons to be optimistic:

These studies suggest an association, not causation. Lots more studies need to be done, particularly long-term studies, before we can conclude sitting more than 4 hours per day causes early death.

The suggestion that the detrimental effects of prolonged sitting are irreversible is based on only one study. None of the studies done thus far have had a long enough trial period to be able to come to such a conclusion. It is far too premature to make such a blanket statement. It can, however, serve as a warning to all of us to take action sooner rather than later and to limit the amount of time spent seated as much as possible.

The average American work week (46 hours) plus the average American commute time (26 minutes, one way) plus 8 hours of sleep per night, still leaves about 60 hours remaining in the average American’s week to not be sitting at a desk or in a car. There are opportunities, both during and after the workday, available to all of us to stand up and move – lots of them.

At Work

If your workplace has a wellness program or healthy lifestyle incentives, check with your Human Resources department to see if it’s possible to have the company update your workstation. Phone headsets, podium-style desk space or a raised workspace could free you up to stand for certain tasks. Even if the company won’t provide you with new workspace furniture, you may be able to make a few, no-cost adjustments to your workspace to allow for more work while standing.

Give yourself a daily limit of seated screen time to divvy up among your home computer, TV and tablet and stick to it.

Perform strength and flexibility workouts at home while watching TV (and then you don’t have to count that time against your daily limit from above). See my strength and flexibility training workout for desk jockeys.

Cook more meals from scratch – all done standing. Not to mention bending, lifting and carrying.

Perform tasks like folding laundry, paying bills, and talking/texting on the phone while standing.

When possible, run errands on foot or by bike. If you need a car, always park in spaces furthest away from your destination and use a hand-held basket over a shopping cart when possible.

If you’ve hired out housecleaning or yard work, consider reclaiming some or all of those tasks. If that seems too daunting and you have school-aged children, remember being active is good for them too. You could take an hour out of your weekend, divide the chores up and complete them as a family. Paying your children to take on some of these responsibilities is cheaper than paying a professional and teaches them the value of work and how to handle money.

Educate yourself on the latest in these studies. The more informed you are, the better choices you’ll make about your lifestyle. Be sure to avoid the pitfalls of sensationalized headlines, though. See my post on how to intelligently read reports on fitness and health studies.

Yes, these studies are sobering. But all is not lost. There are lots of ways we all can move more and sit less. It takes commitment, will and some creativity to stay on track. And, of course, you need a good reason to make the necessary changes. If good health and quality of life aren’t enough to motivate you, remember that you are responsible for modeling fit behavior for your children. If that isn’t motivation enough, I’m not sure what is.

We have a huge problem in this country. And I’ll bet you’ll be surprised when I say it’s not a weight problem. Growing waistlines have been the reality for over 30 years. There has been no shortage of diets, drugs, surgeries and supplements in response. Let me state the obvious – they haven’t worked, aren’t working and probably won’t work. Chasing that elusive number on the scale or garment tag is a false goal, but we chase anyway. Some of us manage to starve our way to that magic number but, more often than not, it’s a fleeting victory. No, we don’t have a weight problem, we have a body image problem. We equate fatness with poor health and everything that is bad and thinness with good health and everything that is good. Finally, scientific studies are turning these old assumptions on their heads.

I have been seeing this phenomenon play out in my industry publications but the idea that one can be overweight and fit (and, conversely, normal weight and unfit) is finally reaching the mainstream media. Not a moment too soon, I say. I was nearly giddy when I read “Fat But Fit? Study Reveals That Fitness, Not Weight, Predicts Risk of Early Death” in the Huffington Post. There’s a reason why I carefully chose the name of my business and blog – Fit & Happier – as opposed to “Thin and Happier.” My philosophy is a balanced diet and exercise program are entirely about being healthy and have little or nothing to do with a number on the scale or dress size. I am thrilled to see that science is validating how I live my life, what I model to my daughters, and what I teach my clients.

Women especially have fallen victim to this “thin equals fit” falsehood over the decades. We are conditioned to believe Barbie and Victoria’s Secret models are the ideal of beauty and health. Beauty, of course, is subjective. But fitness is quantifiable and my area of expertise and I can tell you, unequivocally, these women are not models of fitness. Six foot women weighing 120 lbs with wafer thin bodies having no hint of the muscle that is supposed to be there aren’t the pictures of good health. We do ourselves and our daughters a disservice if we give any credence to this preposterous lie.

The truth is found in science. Obesity has been linked to all kinds of diseases in study after study. The conclusion has been that obesity itself puts one at higher risk for certain diseases and, therefore, raises the likelihood of premature death. But what these new studies suggest is that, while obesity and certain diseases tend to exist together, having an above average BMI (body mass index) may not be the cause of life-threatening ailments after all. Furthermore, being unfit – poor diet and sedentary lifestyle – is more likely the culprit for higher risk. In other words, the old train of thought says that weight in relation to one’s height (BMI) is the best predictor of disease risk and mortality. The new emerging train of thought is that level of fitness is the best predictor, no matter the person’s weight.

Before you do a happy dance with a pint of Ben & Jerry’s, remember the key word here is fitness – regular exercise and a balanced diet. According to some studies, people who are overweight and fit are at lower risk of premature death compared to thin and unfit persons. Put another way, in terms of health and longevity, as long as you’re living a fit life, it doesn’t matter if you’re thin or fat. More studies need to be done before we can embrace this idea fully. Nevertheless, what we’ve learned thus far is encouraging news for millions of people.

It will take a mighty tide to change the way our society views body image and body weight, but studies like these are capable of providing the necessary catalyst. I cringe at weight-loss programs that tell people everyone has a “thin” person inside of them. My motto at Fit & Happier is that there is a fit person inside every one of us. We need to stop beating ourselves up over numbers – pounds, sizes, measurements – and start living fit lives. Fitness gives us energy, vitality, a healthier reproductive system and more fulfilling sex life to go along with it, restful sleep, a more positive outlook, a better quality of life, and, apparently, more of it – a fit and happier life. When you’re living a life like that, who cares what size that life wears?